This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: REPORTS: No Live Ammo for Marines

Originally Posted by MaggieD

This is unbelievable. Honestly, I can't believe it. She should be prosecuted, in my opinion. This is just gross negligence. This should not be one individual's decision. We should have a national police. And it should include our having the ability to defend ourselves on our own soil if we are attacked.

This isn't the first time, Mags. The Marine barracks were bombed in Beirut when a yellow cab raced through the gate unchallenged and detonated by the Marine barracks killing 50 or more people. The Marines at the gate were not carrying loaded weapons. It was Sec. of Defense Casper Weinberger, under Ronald Reagan who was responsible for that directive. Nothing happened to Weinberger.

Washington never learns or either they don't really care that much about the troops. My opinion is that it is both.

Re: REPORTS: No Live Ammo for Marines

So have we actually definitively concluded that these accusations are true, despite the fact that a Pentagon spokesman says it wasn't? Have the claims by the blog(s) been corroborated? Seems like a lot of folks are jumping on the "rush to criticism" bandwagon before actually ascertaining the facts. Just sayin'

Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.

Re: REPORTS: No Live Ammo for Marines

Originally Posted by StillBallin75

So have we actually definitively concluded that these accusations are true, despite the fact that a Pentagon spokesman says it wasn't? Have the claims by the blog(s) been corroborated? Seems like a lot of folks are jumping on the "rush to criticism" bandwagon before actually ascertaining the facts. Just sayin'

No one in Washington has enough balls to put their head in that noose. The real answer is anyone's guess. But, you can bet your ass if security is breached and Americans die no one but no one in Washington will fall on that sword. Everyone will deny mandating unloaded weapons. One thing Washington does well is butt cover.

Re: REPORTS: No Live Ammo for Marines

Originally Posted by Mya

If the Obama Administration are sending a toothless tiger to the Middle East is beyond laughable ... it's plain stupid and a danger to the troops.

I think it's fairly complex. It seems that agents provocateur representing Islamists (not Muslims) have seized the opportunity to excite local malcontents to protest and damage American Embassies and Consulates. Host government troops are really the people you want fighting off the local malcontents. Diplomatically it would seem the best policy. Marines dealing death to the malcontents would likely escalate the situation in most of those countries. You'd want to use the Marines as a last resort in most cases regarding the present attacks. At the same time it is pure idiocy not to allow them carry loaded weapons. It is even more stupid to announce it to the world. Both those things can surely get Marines killed.

Seems to me that there aren't a hell of a lot of options to consider. At the same time not allowing your defensive force to carry loaded weapons should never be an option.

Re: REPORTS: No Live Ammo for Marines

No, Im not. The Obama admin sympathized with the rioters about how they felt about the movie (which isnt the entire reason they are rioting but excuses are excuses) but with Romney he went right after him.

Later after it was clear that people did not agree with the tone of the embassy reply he walked it back. The media narrative placed more emphasis on what Romney said than what the President was actually doing--again, disgraceful.

Bullet thing---true or false, the problem becomes our level of preparation was so poor that people were ready to believe this. We need to overhaul our State protocols on embassy and consulate protection. 4 dead bodies says its obvious we arent doing enough.